Nuclear Power: No Solution to Global Warming
Al Gedicks, sociology professor at UW-La Crosse and long-time activist, focuses on global warming in his review of nuclear power, but his commentary also applies to nuclear power as an unwise choice for energy generation to replace coal and oil:
The nuclear industry has seized the opportunity presented by public concern with global warming to promote a revival of nuclear power. A recent column by Theodore J. Iltis proclaimed that nuclear power is “the only realistic way to satisfy our nation’s power needs while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” (WSJ 1/14/06) Iltis’s argument is based upon several myths.
Myth # 1: Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases. This endlessly repeated statement ignores the fact that without uranium there is no nuclear power. To generate electricity from uranium, a complex chain of industrial processes is needed to convert the uranium in the ground into fuel elements for the reactor; to construct the facilities including the nuclear reactor itself; to handle the wastes and store the wastes in a safe geological repository; and to decommission the plants at the end of their lifetimes. All of these processes require huge amounts of energy and most of this energy comes in the form of fossil fuels, thus contributing to global warming. A complete life-cycle analysis by J.W.Storm van Leeuwen shows that generating electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the carbon dioxide per kiloWatt hour (kWh) of a gas-fired system when the whole system is taken into account. The nuclear process chain also emits other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide with far stronger global-warming potential such as chloro-and flourohydrocarbons.
Myth # 2: There is a plentiful supply of fuel for the nuclear fission process. Uranium is a finite resource. Nuclear power currently provides just over 6% of total world energy consumption. These reactors require about 67,000 tons of uranium per year. The present reserves and resources, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, amount to 3.5 million tons. If we replaced all electricity generated by burning fossil fuels with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years. Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, uranium reserves would be exhausted in just 25 years. Nuclear proponents argue that fast breeder reactors will extend the life span of nuclear power by using plutonium from spent fuel as a fuel source. However, breeder reactors in the U.S. the U.K. and France have been shut down due to safety concerns. Moreover, stretching the supply by reprocessing spent fuel also happens to be the way to make bomb-grade material that is the core of the nuclear proliferation threat.
Myth # 3: There are no viable alternative solutions. A 1997 World Energy Council report stated that increased energy efficiency is the biggest, most immediate and cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the costs of renewable energy are falling while the costs of nuclear power are rising despite the fact that nuclear power has received huge subsidies amounting to $1 trillion in state support, compared to just $50 billion for renewable energy.
Energy analyst Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute have documented that on a worldwide basis, the decentralized, low or no carbon sources of electricity are already bigger than nuclear power and will continue to leave nuclear power in the dust. In 2004 alone, cogeneration (producing electricity and useful heat together) and renewable sources (wind, biomass power, geothermal, small hydro, and solar) added 5.9 times as much net generating capacity and 2.9 times as much electricity as nuclear power did. These decentralized sources of energy can also deliver electricity at one-third the cost of a new nuclear plant and thus buy three times as much climate solution per dollar as spending the same dollar on the nuclear plant.
Mr. Iltis poses the question of whether nuclear power is as great a danger as global warming. This is a false choice. We can reduce greenhouse emissions with a combination of conservation, greater energy efficiency and renewable energy. This can be done more cheaply, more sustainably, and with less risk of radiaton exposure than that offered by nuclear power.
